When a rolling ball exits a spiral tube, it typically maintains its final inertial state and travels along straight line in concordance with Newton's first law of motion. Yet, most people predict that the ball will curve, a "naive physics" misconception called the curvilinear impetus (CI) bias. In the current paper, we explore the ecological hypothesis that the CI bias arises from overgeneralization of correct motion of biological agents. Previous research has established that humans curve when exiting a spiral maze, and college students believe this motion is the same for balls and humans. The current paper consists of two follow up experiments. The first experiment tested the exiting behavior of rodents from a spiral rat maze. Though there were weaknesses in design and procedures of the maze, the findings support that rats do not behave like humans who exhibit the CI bias when exiting a spiral maze. These results are consistent with the CI bias being an overgeneralization of human motion, rather than generic biological motion. The second experiment tested physics teachers on their conception of how a humans and balls behave when exiting a spiral tube. Teachers demonstrated correct knowledge of the straight trajectory of a ball, but generalized the ball's behavior to human motion. Thus physics teachers exhibit the opposite bias from college students and presume that all motion is like inanimate motion. This evidence supports that this type of naive physics inertial bias is at least partly due to participants overgeneralizing both inanimate and animate motion to be the same, perhaps in an effort to minimize cognitive reference memory load. In short, physics training appears not to eliminate the bias, but rather to simply shift it from the presumption of stereotypical animate to stereotypical inanimate behavior.

The positive relationship between self-regulation and student achievement has been repeatedly supported through research. Key considerations that have resulted from prior research include instructor feedback and explicit expectations, student perception of their control of their progress, accurate self-calibration, reflection, goal-setting, age, and methods by which a cycle which integrates all of these can be put in place. While research provides evidence for that fact that it is possible to support student success in several of these areas, many questions are left as to how guided, active self-regulation impacts students perception of their control over their performance, their ability to accurately assess and act upon their strengths and weaknesses, and, ultimately, their overall progress at different developmental stages. This study intended to provide a better understanding of how guidance in the self-regulation strategies of sixth grade science students can impact their attitudes toward learning. Specifically, this study investigated the question, "What is the effect of active reflection, graphing of grades, and goal setting on sixth-grade students' locus of control and ability to self-regulate?"

Writing scientific explanations is increasingly important, and today's students must have the ability to navigate the writing process to create a persuasive scientific explanation. One aspect of the writing process is receiving feedback before submitting a final draft. This study examined whether middle school students benefit more in the writing process from receiving peer feedback or teacher feedback on rough drafts of scientific explanations. The study also looked at whether males and females reacted differently to the treatment groups. And it examined if content knowledge and the written scientific explanations were correlated. The study looked at 38 sixth and seventh-grade students throughout a 7-week earth science unit on earth systems. The unit had six lessons. One lesson introduced the students to writing scientific explanations, and the other five were inquiry-based content lessons. They wrote four scientific explanations throughout the unit of study and received feedback on all four rough drafts. The sixth-graders received teacher feedback on each explanation and the seventh-graders received peer-feedback after learning how to give constructive feedback. The students also took a multiple-choice pretest/posttest to evaluate content knowledge. The analyses showed that there was no significant difference between the group receiving peer feedback and the group receiving teacher feedback on the final drafts of the scientific explanations. There was, however, a significant effect of practice on the scores of the scientific explanations. Students wrote significantly better with each subsequent scientific explanation. There was no significant difference between males and females based on the treatment they received. There was a significant correlation between the gain in pretest to posttest scores and the scientific explanations and a significant correlation between the posttest scores and the scientific explanations. Content knowledge and written scientific explanations are related. Students who wrote scientific explanations had significant gains in content knowledge.